Appeal No. 95-4919
Application No. 08/096,516
hot-melt adhesive as recited in step (b) of the independent
claim on appeal. Regarding heating step (a), we interpret the
independent claim before us consistent with the appellants'
specification disclosure to require that this heating step
precedes the adhesive forming step (b) as argued by the
appellants (e.g., see the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of
the brief). In contrast, while the method of Neher includes a
heating step, it is clear that this step is practiced after,
not before, the adhesive is applied so as to remove the
adhesive solvent (e.g., see lines 39 through 44 in column 5
and lines 9 through 17 in column 6). Additionally, we find no
support for the examiner's apparent belief that Neher's
solvent-based adhesive is readable on or would have suggested
the hot-melt adhesive claimed by the appellants.
In light of the foregoing, we can not sustain the
examiner's section 103 rejection of claims 1 through 8 as
being unpatentable over Neher in view of Wheeler.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007